Hormones and Behavior 36, 234 –241 (1999)
Article ID hbeh.1999.1542, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Implicit Power Motivation Moderates Men’sTestosterone Responses to Imagined
and Real Dominance Success
Oliver C. Schultheiss,* ,1 Kenneth L. Campbell,‡and David C. McClelland† ,§*Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall 1518, 33 Kirkland
Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138; ‡Department of Biology, University of
Massachusetts at Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125-3393;
and §Department of Psychology, Boston University, 64 Cummington Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Received February 16, 1999; revised May 3, 1999; accepted June 9, 1999

This study tested the hypothesis that implicit power motivation moderates individuals’ testosterone responses
to the anticipated success in and actual outcome of adominance contest. Salivary testosterone levels wereassessed in 42 male students at the beginning of thestudy, after they had imagined a success in an ensuing
power contest, and immediately after the contest had
taken place. Contest outcome (winning or losing against
a competitor on a speed-based task) was varied experimentally. Participants’ power motive was assessed witha picture-story exercise, in which an assertive, personalized (p Power) component was distinguished from an
altruistic, socialized (s Power) component. In contrast to
all other participants, individuals high only in p Power (a)had elevated testosterone after imagining a success in a
subsequent dominance contest and (b) continued tohave high testosterone levels after actually winning, but
not after losing, the contest. © 1999 Academic Press
Key Words: testosterone; implicit power motivation;
dominance contest; goal imagery.

There is ample evidence from studies on primatesand humans to suggest a link between dominant or
aggressive behavior on the one hand and the gonadal
steroid hormone testosterone on the other (Mazur and
Booth, 1998; Bernstein, Gordon, and Rose, 1983). Spe-1

To whom correspondence should be addressed at present address: Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, P. O. Box
601553, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany. Fax: 149 331 977 2829. E-mail:oschultheiss@yahoo.com.
† Deceased on March 27, 1998.

234

cifically, a number of field and laboratory studies withadult male participants of tennis matches (e.g., Booth,
Shelley, Mazur, Tharp, and Kittok, 1989), chess tournaments (Mazur, Booth, and Dabbs, 1992), or contests
in which the outcome was varied experimentally (Gladue, Boechler, and McCaul, 1989; McCaul, Gladue,
and Joppa, 1992) revealed (a) a rise in testosterone
before dominance-related contests that has been interpreted as an anticipation effect (see also Kemper, 1990)
and (b) elevated testosterone levels in winners anddepressed testosterone levels in losers for some minutes to several hours after the contest. Similar testosterone changes have also been observed in the case ofvicarious dominance successes or failures (Bernhardt,
Dabbs, Fielden, and Lutter, 1998).
Other researchers have failed to find postcontest
testosterone differences between winners and losers infield and laboratory studies (Gonzalez-Bono, Salvador, Serrano, and Ricarte, 1999; Mazur, Susman, andEdelbrock, 1997; Salvador, Simon, Suay, and Llorens,
1987), which casts some doubt on the general efficacy
of situational factors such as contest outcome to influence testosterone levels. It would seem reasonable toassume that personality factors may moderate individuals’ testosterone responses to succeeding or failing at a dominance contest. Specifically, the strengthof an individual’s need for dominance or status may
play a crucial role in how the individual responds
hormonally to dominance outcomes. Accordingly,
only individuals high in this need should show differential patterns of testosterone after winning or losing,whereas testosterone levels of individuals low in this0018-506X/99 $30.00
Copyright © 1999 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Power Motivation and Testosterone

need should remain largely unaffected by contest outcome.
Attempts to pinpoint such a personality disposition,
though, have met with little success in studies employing a wide variety of paper-and-pencil measuresof dominance and other personality traits (e.g., Archer, Birring, and Wu, 1998; Dabbs, Hopper, and Jurkovic, 1990). Archer (1991) and Mazur and Booth(1998) have therefore questioned the relevance of suchself-report measures to predict hormones and behaviors associated with dominance. In a similar vein,studies on motivational processes in humans haveshown that questionnaire measures of self-attributed
motives (e.g., the self-attributed needs for dominance,
achievement, or affiliation) tap individuals’ cognitionbased self-concept rather than their emotional–motivational dispositions and thus frequently fail to predict affect-driven behavior (Biernat, 1989; deCharms,
Morrison, Reitman, and McClelland, 1955; McClelland, 1987; McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger,
1989).
Hence, in the present study we employed a measureof affect-based power motivation to predict adult human males’ testosterone changes in response to winning or losing a dominance contest against anotherperson. The power motive can be defined as the capacity of obtaining emotional satisfaction from having
impact on others (Winter, 1973, 1996). An individual’s
power motive is aroused by learned stimuli that signal
the availability of the impact incentive in a given
situation. The individual then engages in behavior
that, if it is instrumental in obtaining the incentive,
leads to a rewarding affective state and thus becomes
reinforced (see McClelland, 1987; Weinberger and McClelland, 1990; Winter, 1996).
The power motive is implicit in the sense that it
functions outside of a person’s conscious awarenessand is not correlated with questionnaire-based measures of self-attributed dominance, aggression, or assertiveness (King, 1995; McClelland, 1980). However,it can shape an individual’s fantasies and behavior if
aroused by power-relevant stimuli in the individual’senvironment. Therefore, the strength of a person’s
power motive can be determined by analyzing thecontent of fantasies he or she reports in response to
picture cues thematically related to power and dominance. The Picture Story Exercise (PSE) technique developed by McClelland and his colleagues for theassessment of implicit motives is typically used forthis purpose (see Smith, 1992). The PSE measure of
implicit power motivation has been shown to predicta wide variety of dominance-related behaviors and life

235

outcomes and to be closely associated with sympathetic arousal, immune system functioning, and substance abuse (for reviews, see Jemmott, 1987; McClelland, 1987, 1989; Winter, 1996).
In the present research, we proceeded on the assumption that in dominance-related contexts, individuals with a strong power motive should show highlevels of testosterone after winning a dominance contest against another person. In contrast, losing thecontest should lead to stable or reduced testosterone
levels in high- and low-power individuals alike. Because high-power individuals may greatly differ in themeans through which they have learned to have impact on others, we differentiated between a personalized (p Power) and a socialized (s Power) componentof the power motive. As previous research has shown,individuals high in p Power satisfy their need for
impact in assertive ways, and it was this variant of
power motivation to which the incentive of winning acontest and thus beating an opponent was tailored.
Individuals high in s Power, on the other hand, typically try to have impact through prosocial behavior,
and a strong socialized power motive acts as a checkon personalized power concerns (McClelland, Davis,
Kalin, and Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1973). Thus, we
expected that it would be only those individuals who
were high solely in p Power for whom winning thecontest would be rewarding and who would therefore
register the largest gains in testosterone. In contrast,
winners high in s Power or low in both kinds of power
motivation as well as losers in general should not
respond with a testosterone increase to the contest
outcome.
We tested these hypotheses in a sample of malestudents because (a) testosterone levels are about 3- to
10-fold higher, and thus easier to measure, in adultmen than in adult women (Read, 1993) and (b) findings regarding the relationship between testosterone
and dominance in women have been somewhat inconclusive so far (Dabbs, 1992; Mazur and Booth, 1998).
To assess changes in hormone concentrations, wemeasured participants’ salivary testosterone levels
several times before and after the contest. Finally, by
having individuals anticipate a successful outcome of
the contest imaginatively before actually entering it,
we both ascertained that individuals’ power motive
would be adequately engaged in the contest task (seeSchultheiss and Brunstein, 1999) and tested whether
the anticipatory precontest rise in testosterone reported in earlier studies would be moderated by participants’ implicit power motive.

236

METHOD
Participants. Forty-two male Harvard University
undergraduate and graduate students, age 20.26 6
0.44 years, who had fasted and refrained from oral
hygiene for 1 h before arriving at the laboratory, participated pairwise in the study for a remuneration of$20. Smokers and psychology students were excluded.
Differences in participants’ testosterone levels due tocircadian variations were minimized by holding sessions only at 1:45 PM and 4:00 PM.
Design and procedure. The study was based on an
Experimental Condition 3 p Power 3 s Power design.
Experimental condition was varied by having one participant in each dyad win (N 5 21) and the other lose
(N 5 21) a dominance contest. Participants’ p and s
Power levels were assessed with a PSE.
Upon arriving at the laboratory, participants provided a first saliva sample (T1). The male experimenter then administered a PSE and had them workon a task unrelated to the present report for 15 min.
Next, he explained that participants would now compete against each other on a speed-based paper-andpencil task. Before participants entered the contest,
they listened to a tape-recorded imagery exercise vividly describing the course of the ensuing contest fromthe winner’s perspective for 10 min (cf. Schultheiss
and Brunstein, 1999) and then provided a second saliva sample (T2). Immediately upon finishing the actual dominance contest, which had lasted 10 min,participants collected saliva for a third time (T3). Finally, they were fully debriefed about the design andpurpose of the study.
Experimental condition. The task participants
competed on during the contest required them to connect a sequence of consecutive ascending numbers(1-2-3-4-. . .), which were surrounded by distractor
numbers and arranged in a matrix, as fast as possible
with a pen until they reached a highlighted number(e.g., “67”) representing the stop mark. Each pair ofparticipants worked on 10 different forms during thecontest. The participant finishing first on a given trial
said “Done!” and the other participant had to stop
immediately. Thus, each participant had the opportunity to have impact on the other participant by completing a sequence first and thus to stop and hence
frustrate his competitor. Undetectable for the participants, the number sequences of the 10 parallel forms
presented during the contest differed in length suchthat the designated winner won 8 of 10 times while thedesignated loser accordingly won only 2 times.

Schultheiss, Campbell, and McClelland

Implicit power motivation. The PSE was administered to participants using standard instructions described in Smith (1992) and consisted of six picture
cues that have been widely used in earlier research on
power motivation (McClelland, 1975; Smith, 1992;
Winter, 1973). Participants had 5 min per picture to
write down a story. Two trained scorers later independently coded these stories for p Power and s Power.
The scoring manual, which was adapted from thescoring system developed by McClelland et al. (1972),
scored p Power whenever someone shows a concern
for increasing her or his dominance over others inassertive or powerful ways. Whenever someone having power resources at his or her command uses his or
her power to give unsolicited help, advice, or protection, s Power was scored. Percentage agreement between scorers across all stories, conservatively estimated by the index of concordance (see Martin andBateson, 1993; Winter, 1991), was satisfactory with
73%. Scoring disagreements were resolved by discussion, and scores from these joint sessions were used as
participants’ final scores. Summed across six stories,
participants had a p Power score of 3.17 6 0.42 and ans Power score of 0.88 6 0.16. Because s Power imagery
was absent in the stories of 19 participants and present
once or more often in the stories of 23 participants, adummy variable was created by assigning a “0” to theformer group of participants and a “1” to the latter.
For maximum test power, p Power remained a quantitative variable in all further analyses (cf. Cohen and
Cohen, 1983).
Salivary testosterone assay. Sample collections
took about 5 min each and were done at times .10
min apart, ample time for salivary testosterone levels
to approach equilibrium with free testosterone levels
in serum (Ellison, 1993; Read, 1993). At each sampling
point, participants used a fresh sugar-free chewing
gum to collect 3.5 to 7 ml saliva in a sterile cryogenic
vial and then removed the chewing gum (Dabbs,
1991). Vials were closed and frozen immediately aftercollection. For accurate pipetting, samples were freed
from mucopolysaccarides by several freeze–thaw cycles with subsequent centrifugation. Salivary testosterone levels were determined by a solid-phase 125I radioimmunoassay (Coat-A-Count, Diagnostic Products
Corp., Los Angeles, CA), using the modified protocol
described in Campbell, Schultheiss, and McClelland(1999). Intra-assay CV for duplicates was 12% (averaged across three assays) and sensitivity was at 16
pg/ml.
Statistical procedures. Data were analyzed using
the regression procedure of SYSTAT 7.0. ExperimentalPower Motivation and Testosterone

237

condition was coded 1 for winners and 21 for losers.
When higher-order effects were tested for significance,
lower-order effects were always controlled for first. To
determine whether independent variables had an effect on a testosterone measurement above and beyond
their influence on a preceding measurement, we also
tested for significant changes in testosterone accounted for by the independent variables by covarying out the preceding measurement. Descriptive data
are expressed as mean 6 SEM. An a level of 5%(two-tailed) was employed in all analyses.

RESULTSFor T1 through T3, participants’ salivary testosterone concentrations were 104 6 10, 108 6 8, and 125 6
9 pg/ml and did not differ significantly across thethree measurements, P . 0.05. Although correlations
between measurements were of only moderate magnitude (r 5 0.37 for T1/T2, r 5 0.37 for T1/T3, and r 5
0.44 for T2/T3, Ps , 0.02), they were comparable tothose obtained in other studies (e.g., Booth et al., 1989).
At T1, only the correlation between testosterone andp Power approached significance (r 5 0.29, P , 0.07).
Thus, individuals high in p Power tended to havehigher testosterone levels (e.g., a predicted value of
122 pg/ml for individuals 1 SD above the p Power
sample mean) than those low in p Power (e.g., apredicted value of 87 pg/ml for individuals 1 SD
below the p Power sample mean).
At T2, p Power was accounted for by a highly
significant p Power 3 s Power interaction (B 5
221.04, SE 5 4.81, DR 2 5 0.260, DF(1, 38) 5 19.11, P ,0.0001). The full regression model accounted for
48.35% of variance in testosterone at T2 (F(3, 38) 5
11.86, P , 0.00005). As Fig. 1 illustrates, this interaction was based on a strong positive association between p Power and testosterone in the absence of s
Power (r 5 0.77, P 5 0.0001) that did not occur in thepresence of s Power (r 5 0.09, P . 0.05). Notably, theinteraction remained highly significant even when wereran the full regression analysis while holding testosterone at T1 constant, thus testing for changes in testosterone from T1 to T2 (B 5 219.04, SE 5 4.85, DR 2 5
0.129, DF(1, 37) 5 15.41, P , 0.0005).
At T3, testosterone levels of winners (133 6 14 pg/ml) did not differ from those of losers (117 6 11
pg/ml), P . 0.05. However, postcontest testosterone
was predicted by a significant Experimental Condition 3 p Power 3 s Power interaction (B 5 216.95,
SE 5 7.47, DR 2 5 0.082, DF(1, 34) 5 5.15, P , 0.05),

FIG. 1. The effect of p Power on testosterone (T2) after the goal
imagery exercise. Regression lines were plotted separately for participants with s Power either absent (filled circles, solid line) orpresent (empty circles, dotted line).

which survived covarying out testosterone at T2 (B 5
215.45, SE 5 7.84, DR 2 5 0.063, DF(1, 33) 5 3.87, P 50.05). Without the covariate, the full regression model
including all predictors and their interaction terms
accounted for 46.01% of variance in testosterone at T3(F(7, 34) 5 4.14, P , 0.005).
The three-way interaction was based on a highly
significant p Power 3 s Power effect among winners(B 5 251.86, SE 5 12.41, DR 2 5 0.432, DF(1, 17) 5
17.47, P , 0.001), which also held when testosterone at
T2 was partialled out first (B 5 245.92, SE 5 17.27,
DR 2 5 0.269, DF(1, 16) 5 7.07, P , 0.02). Thus, among
winners, the pattern of results at T3 significantly differed from that obtained at T2. Further analyses revealed that in this group, p Power was positively
associated with testosterone in the absence of s Power(r 5 0.88, P 5 0.01) and negatively in the presence ofs Power (r 5 20.62, P 5 0.01). As Fig. 2 illustrates,
winners high in p Power but lacking s Power had
higher testosterone at T3 than all other winners orlosers in general, whereas s Power-present winners
high in p Power had lower postcontest testosterone
than most other participants.
A significant p Power 3 s Power interaction also
emerged for losers (B 5 217.97, SE 5 7.78, DR 2 5

238

Schultheiss, Campbell, and McClelland

FIG. 2. The effect of p Power on testosterone (T3) after the contest. Regression lines were plotted separately for winners (left) and losers (right)
with s Power either absent (filled circles, solid lines) or present (empty circles, dotted lines).

0.234, DF(1, 17) 5 5.33, P , 0.05); however, it did notsurvive partialling for testosterone at T2 (P . 0.05)
and therefore could not be differentiated from thepattern of results obtained at T2. Additional analyses
indicated that although correlations between p Powerand testosterone were sizable both in the presence (r 520.41) and in the absence (r 5 0.54) of s Power in thisgroup, they did not become significant, Ps . 0.05.
Notably, in contrast to their winning counterparts,
none of the losers high in p Power but lacking s Power
had testosterone values greater than 175 pg/ml or
exceeding those of s Power-present losers.

DISCUSSION
The present findings provide strong support for thenotion that in human males, individual differences in
two components of implicit power motivation moderate testosterone responses to both an imagined and areal success in a dominance-related contest. First, wefound that implicit power motivation predicted individuals’ hormonal responses to anticipating a dominance success imaginatively. Postimagery testosterone
levels were about twice as high in individuals highonly in p Power, that is, with a strong need to have

impact on others exclusively through assertive means,compared to all other participants. We were thus able
to capture a testosterone-stimulating effect of dominance fantasies that has been postulated on the basisof elevated precontest testosterone levels observed insome studies (cf. Kemper, 1990; Mazur and Booth,1998) but never directly tested.
Second, we found that after participants had actually won a subsequent dominance contest, implicit
power motivation in combination with contest outcome predicted postcontest testosterone above andbeyond the effects observed after the imagery exercise
preceding the contest. Specifically, among winners
without s Power, postcontest testosterone levels remained positively related to p Power, and those withthe highest levels of p Power had the highest testosterone levels of all participants. Moreover, in accordance with the hypothesis that s Power acts as a checkon assertive motivational impulses, we found thatamong winners with a socialized power motive higher
p Power was now associated with lower postcontest
testosterone. By comparison, postcontest testosterone
remained largely unchanged relative to precontest
levels in losers, and high-p Power losers lacking sPower did not show the elevated testosterone levels
we observed in their winning counterparts.

Power Motivation and Testosterone

Notably, imagining a success or actually winning or
losing the contest did not in and of itself account fordifferences in individuals’ postimagery or postcontest
testosterone levels, thus reinforcing our notion that inorder to fully understand testosterone changes indominance-related contexts, it is necessary to look atcharacteristics of both the situation (i.e., an anticipatedor actual dominance success) and the person (i.e.,interindividual variations in the affective capacity toexperience having impact as rewarding, which arereflected by differences in the implicit power motive).
Hence, previous failures to find clear-cut testosterone
differences between winners and losers of dominancecontests may have been due to wide variations inparticipants’ implicit power motivation, among otherpotential reasons.
What is the possible role of testosterone in implicit
power motivation? As Mazur (1985) and Kemper(1990) have theorized, elevated testosterone levels following a dominance success may serve to reinforce
assertive behavior, whereas depressed testosterone
levels after losing a dominance contest should work
the opposite way. A reinforcing function of testosterone has been documented in animal studies in which
testosterone administration was effective in increasing
the intensity of behavior preceding the hormone treatment (e.g., Alexander, Packard, and Hines, 1994; Packard, Cornell, and Alexander, 1997) and is also suggested by the interaction of sex steroids with brain
reward structures subserving incentive motivation(e.g., Alderson and Baum, 1981; Packard, Schroeder,and Alexander, 1998). Although we are not aware ofany studies in which the reinforcing role of testosterone has been tested directly in human subjects, wewould argue on the basis of our present findings that
if testosterone increases following a dominance success indeed strengthen behavior that was instrumental
in achieving that success, we would expect to observe
the strongest learning effects in individuals high in
implicit power motivation, because they also show themost pronounced testosterone responses to dominance-relevant outcomes. Hence, within dominancerelated contexts, it seems possible that testosterone’s
capacity to reinforce behavior may be specific to theimplicit power motive.
Underscoring the advantage of implicit over selfreport measures of dominance, the magnitude of theeffects resulting from the prediction of testosterone
with a combination of implicit power motivation andsituational factors by far exceeded those obtained insimilar experimental studies using questionnaire measures of dominance to predict hormonal responses. In

239

contrast to the lack of substantial associations between
testosterone and self-report measures in many crosssectional studies, we also observed that high-p Power
individuals tended to start out with higher testosterone levels than other participants. This finding may
either reflect a lasting up-regulation of testicular function in high-p Power individuals, presumably due to a
training effect of frequent dominance successes over a
prolonged period of time, or a more momentary carryover of a recent testosterone surge they may haveobtained by successfully asserting themselves outside
the laboratory.
In addition to replicating the present results in otherand larger male samples than the one studied in thepresent research, future studies should employ sufficiently sensitive testosterone assays (see Campbell etal., 1999) and possibly also estrogen assays (see Cashdan, 1995) to determine whether the pattern of results
we obtained in this study will also hold for women’s
hormonal responses to winning or losing a dominancecontest. Second, the interplay between implicit power
motivation and power-related fantasies on testosterone changes should be studied in greater detail than
was possible in the present study. Specifically, thecontent of individuals’ fantasies could be varied experimentally by, for instance, having some participants imagine a success, some a failure, and otherssomething unrelated to having impact. Third, wewould expect testosterone to be closely associatedwith components of implicit power motivation otherthan p Power. Thus, it may seem worthwhile to create
situations in which socialized power motivation (or acombination of p Power and s Power) is first aroused
and then fulfilled or frustrated by, for instance, having
individuals fantasize about a success or actually succeed or fail at teaching others in order to study theirhormonal responses to such imagined or real powerrelevant outcomes. Fourth, some studies indicate that
the Type A behavior pattern, which is characterizedby high competitiveness, hostility, and an enhanced
sense of time urgency, is associated with increased
daytime testosterone levels (Zumoff, Rosenfeld, Friedman, Byers, Rosenman, and Hellman, 1984) and testosterone increases in response to provocation (Berman, Gladue, and Taylor, 1993) or challenging tasks(Williams, Lane, Kuhn, Melosh, White, and Schanberg, 1982). However, despite parallels in the behavior
profiles of Type A and high-power individuals, there
is little empirical overlap between the two constructs(Matthews and Saal, 1978). Nevertheless, it mightseem worthwhile to explore the cojoint effects of implicit power motivation and the Type A behavior pat-

240

tern on testosterone responses to dominance contests
in future studies.
Finally, in light of the well-documented link between testosterone and aggressive behavior on the one
hand and the frequent failure to predict either withquestionnaire measures of dominance or aggression
on the other, we believe that the implicit power motive
has suffered undue neglect in past research on testosterone and aggression. By considering the extensive
body of literature that already exists on this approach,affect-based dispositions can help illuminate whysome individuals frequently resort to violent ways ofdealing with their social environment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Erin Lehman for her help in developing the materials
used in this study, Katharina Thiele for coding the stories, andJoachim Brunstein, Michael Baum, and three anonymous reviewers
for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. This work was
supported by a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft research stipend
to Oliver C. Schultheiss (SCHU 1210/1-1, 1-2, 1-3) and a research
grant of McBer & Co., Boston, to David C. McClelland. This article
is dedicated to the memory of David C. McClelland.

REFERENCES
Alderson, L. M., and Baum, M. J. (1981). Differential effects ofgonadal steroids on dopamine metabolism in mesolimbic andnigro-striatal pathways of male rat brain. Brain Res. 218, 189 –206.
Alexander, G. M., Packard, M. G., and Hines, M. (1994). Testosterone has rewarding affective properties in male rats: Implications
for the biological basis of sexual motivation. Behav. Neurosci. 108,424 – 428.
Archer, J. (1991). The influence of testosterone on human aggression. Brit. J. Psychol. 82, 1–28.
Archer, J., Birring, S. S., and Wu, F. C. W. (1998). The association
between testosterone and aggression among young men: Empirical findings and a meta-analysis. Aggress. Behav. 24, 411– 420.
Berman, M., Gladue, B., and Taylor, S. (1993). The effects of hormones, Type A behavior pattern, and provocation on aggression
in men. Motiv. Emot. 17, 125–138.
Bernhardt, P. C., Dabbs, J. M., Jr., Fielden, J. A., and Lutter, C. D.
(1998). Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events. Phys. Behav. 65,
59 – 62.
Bernstein, I. S., Gordon, T. P., and Rose, R. M. (1983). The interactionof hormones, behavior, and social context in nonhuman primates.
In B. B. Svare (Ed.), Hormones and Aggressive Behavior, pp. 535–561.
Plenum, New York.
Biernat, M. (1989). Motives and values to achieve: Different constructs with different effects. J. Pers. 57, 69 –95.
Booth, A., Shelley, G., Mazur, A., Tharp, G., and Kittok, R. (1989).
Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition.
Horm. Behav. 23, 556 –571.

Schultheiss, Campbell, and McClelland

Campbell, K. L., Schultheiss, O. C., and McClelland, D. C. (1999). A
necessary adjustment of protocol for use of DPC Coat-A-Counttotal testosterone assay with saliva. Clin. Biochem. 32, 83– 85.
Cashdan, E. (1995). Hormones, sex, and status in women. Horm.
Behav. 29, 354 –366.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dabbs, J. M. (1991). Salivary testosterone measurements: Collecting,storing, and mailing saliva samples. Phys. Behav. 49, 815– 817.
Dabbs, J. M. (1992). Testosterone measurements in social and clinicalpsychology. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 11, 302–321.
Dabbs, J. M., Hopper, C. H., and Jurkovic, G. J. (1990). Testosterone
and personality among college students and military veterans.
Pers. Indiv. Diff. 11, 1263–1269.
deCharms, R., Morrison, H. W., Reitman, W., and McClelland, D. C.
(1955). Behavioral correlates of directly and indirectly measured
achievement motivation. In D. C. McClelland (Ed.), Studies in
Motivation, pp. 414 – 423. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Ellison, P. T. (1993). Measurements of salivary progesterone. Ann.
N. Y. Acad. Sci. 694, 161–176.
Gladue, B. A., Boechler, M., and McCaul, K. D. (1989). Hormonal
response to competition in human males. Aggress. Behav. 15, 409 –422.
Gonzalez-Bono, E., Salvador, A., Serrano, M. A., and Ricarte, J.
(1999). Testosterone, cortisol, and mood in a sports team competition. Horm. Behav. 35, 55– 62.
Jemmott, J. B. (1987). Social motives and susceptibility to disease:
Stalking individual differences in health risks. J. Pers. 55, 267–298.
Kemper, T. D. (1990). Social Structure and Testosterone: Explorations of
the Socio-bio-social Chain. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick.
King, L. A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal memories:
Relations of measures of human motivation. J. Pers. 63, 985–1007.
Martin, P., and Bateson, P. (1993). Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
Matthews, K. A., and Saal, F. E. (1978). Relationship of the Type A
coronary-prone behavior pattern to achievement, power, and affiliation motives. Psychosom. Med. 40, 630 – 636.
Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primategroups. Soc. Forces 64, 377– 402.
Mazur, A., and Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance inmen. Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 353–397.
Mazur, A., Booth, A., and Dabbs, J. M. (1992). Testosterone andchess competition. Soc. Psych. Quart. 55, 70 –77.
Mazur, A., Susman, E. J., and Edelbrock, S. (1997). Sex differences intestosterone response to a video game contest. Evol. Hum. Behav.
18, 317–326.
McCaul, K. D., Gladue, B. A., and Joppa, M. (1992). Winning, losing,mood, and testosterone. Horm. Behav. 26, 486 –504.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience. Irvington,
New York.
McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions. The merits of operant
and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 10 – 41. Sage, Beverly Hills.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human Motivation. Cambridge Univ. Press,
New York.
McClelland, D. C. (1989). Motivational factors in health and disease.
Am. Psychol. 44, 675– 683.
McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. N., Kalin, R., and Wanner, E. (1972).
The Drinking Man. Free Press, New York.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., and Weinberger, J. (1989). How do
self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychol. Rev. 96, 690 –702.

Power Motivation and Testosterone

Packard, M. G., Cornell, A. H., and Alexander, G. M. (1997). Rewarding affective properties of intra-nucleus accumbens injections of testosterone. Behav. Neurosci. 111, 219 –224.
Packard, M. G., Schroeder, J. P., and Alexander, G. M. (1998).
Expression of testosterone conditioned place preference isblocked by peripheral or intra-accumbens injection of alpha-flupenthixol. Horm. Behav. 34, 39 – 47.
Read, G. F. (1993). Status report on measurement of salivary estrogens and androgens. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 694, 146 –160.
Salvador, A., Simon, V., Suay, F., and Llorens, L. (1987). Testosterone and cortisol responses to competitive fighting in humanmales: A pilot study. Aggress. Behav. 13, 9 –13.
Schultheiss, O. C., and Brunstein, J. C. (1999). Goal imagery: Bridging
the gap between implicit motives and explicit goals. J. Pers. 67, 1–38.
Smith, C. P. (Ed.) (1992). Motivation and Personality: Handbook ofThematic Content Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
Weinberger, J., and McClelland, D. C. (1990). Cognitive versus
traditional motivational models: Irreconcilable or complemen-241

tary? In E. T. Higgins and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol. 2, pp.
562–597. Guilford, New York.
Williams, R. B., Lane, J. D., Kuhn, C. M., Melosh, W., White, A. D.,
and Schanberg, S. M. (1982). Type A behavior and elevated physiological and neuroendrocrine responses to cognitive tasks. Science 218, 483– 485.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The Power Motive. Free Press, New York.
Winter, D. G. (1991). Measuring personality at a distance: Development of an integrated system for scoring motives in running text.
In D. J. Ozer, J. M. Healy, and A. J. Stewart (Eds.), Perspectives in
Personality, Vol. 3, pp. 59 – 89. Jessica Kingsley, London.
Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and Interpretation of Lives.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zumoff, B., Rosenfeld, R. S., Friedman, M., Byers, S. O., Rosenman,
R. H., and Hellman, L. (1984). Elevated daytime urinary excretionof testosterone glucuronide in men with Type A behavior pattern.
Psychosom. Med. 46, 223–225.